Illinois concealed-carry law fails to pass – Blessing in disguise?

Another attempt to pass the concealed-carry law in Illinois failed last week even though it captured the overwhelming majority of the vote 64-45, but needed a supermajority of 71 votes.

A supermajority vote was required because the bill would override the home-rule authority of some municipalities to establish their own concealed-carry rules, and the bill sets a state-wide standard.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit stuck down Illinois’ last-state-in-the-nation ban on concealed-carry and ordered the state to pass some form of concealed-carry law by June 2013.

If the state’s legislature doesn’t pass a concealed-carry law by the deadline, there might be no restrictions as to where a person can carry a loaded weapon in public or little additional restrictions other than those required to obtain a gun in the first place.

Advocates of concealed-carry point to the Supreme Court decision that ruled the Second Amendment gives citizens not only the right to own firearms, but the right to “bear” those firearms outside the home.

If the bill as written had passed last week, it would have been one of the most strict concealed-carry laws in the country, based on the whims of Chicago lawmakers who believe that no additional guns are needed in the state or necessary to defend one’s life.

The state tried to pass “may issue” concealed-carry that leaves the final decision to local law enforcement, patterned after the New York bill that severely limits who may carry a weapon in public.

The bill had higher permit fees than those originally imposed, more training required and restrictions where weapons could be carried. It was probably the strictest “shall carry” bill in the country, according to its sponsor Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg.

Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Edwardsville is also worried that if something isn’t passed by the General Assembly, the court would “allow things we don’t want to happen in this state if we do nothing.”

So, the pressure is on state legislators to do something before the court deadline. However, to get 71 Illinois legislators to agree on anything may be a near impossibility and the citizens of the state might get a better deal from the court, without Chicago making the decisions for the rest of us based on their 500 plus murders last year!

Pat, you are correct. I checked four or five references concerning the latest Supreme Court case letting New York’s law stand – which requires a concealed-carry permit holder to justify why they need a gun in public – setting the rules whether limts may be placed on guns in public. The Supreme Court let the lower court ruling stand. It was Judge Posner’s ruling on the Illinois gun ban that I should have referred to, rather than the Supreme Court.

“Judge Richard A. Posner, writing for the majority, in the Illinois case, said his ruling was required by the Heller decision. The court gave the Illinois legislature six months to modify their law.

Judge Posner reviewed the empirical literature about the practical consequences for crime and safety of bans on carrying guns in public, and he found it inconclusive. “Anyway,” Judge Posner wrote, “the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.”

Judge Posner also held that “bearing” is a right that only makes sense in public, and thus must allow for carrying outside the home.

The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

The Illinois decision is in tension with the one from New York, and such conflicts often prompt Supreme Court review. Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the Maryland law.”

Regardless of what happens with Illinois’ ban, the case will undoubtedly come before the Supreme Court again and if they deny the case once more, that would mean states have the right to set their own rules on carrying a gun in public and if you want to protect yourself outside the home, you may have to move to a state that allows you to carry a gun in public.

However, I still think I’m correct that Illinois citizens would still be better off leaving the decision to the courts rather than the liberals in Chicago and Springfield.

You already can if you read the statute…well pretty much. It’s all in there it allows you to carry your weapon on you any time,but it must be in a carry bag or a fanny pack and your bullets are to be separated…that’s it….really read it guys

Just to inform all the gun-grabbing Leftists out there. a citizen is the “first responder” who protects their own safety. Depriving us of that ability IS a violation of our rights. You may find the following statistics interesting :

According to [Crime in the U.S. 2010, FBI], there were 14,748 murders, 367,832 robbery victims, and 84,767 rapes that police were unable to prevent.

Police Response to Domestic Violence Final Report

December 31, 1988 NCJ 126667

Police logs were examined to learn the actual nature and extent of calls for service for different time periods during the day. Officers also completed a 1-page incident reporting form. The eight police departments varied in the incidence of domestic violence calls and differed in size, geographic location in the State, police resources, and crime rates. In general, the larger the department, the larger the percentage of cases were taken up by domestic disturbance calls. Nearly one in three of all calls was recognized as repetitive in nature. Minor injuries to the victim were reported in 34.2 percent of all cases. Usually, two officers responded to the call with an average response time of 19 minutes. The most frequent resolution of domestic violence calls was to “advise victim of rights,” which occurred in 19.6 percent of all cases. “Restored peace,” which occurred 11.5 percent of the time, was the second most frequent response. The arrest or taking into protective custody of the offending party occurred in 7.7 percent of the cases. In those cases in which a court order was in effect, arrest occurred in 23 percent of the cases. Specific issues for which statutes need to be clarified are recommended as is the need to direct more attention to alternative interventions. 15 references, 7 tables, and 1 appendix

“an average response time of 19 minutes” is the critical piece of information. How long will the CRIMINAL take to rob, rape, or kill you?

Enacting laws that prevent a concealed-carry permit holder from moving around freely defeats the purpose of concealed-carry. Denying access to mass transit in urban areas is one such example.
Also, the Aurora shooting, and Sandy Hook, shows how much security that so-called “gun-free zones” provide.

To quote Benjamin Franklin “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” .

Sorry Terry I meant Juice.
Not at all. read what the statute says, It allows you to carry a gun separated from the bullets and if you are confronted with a violent armed attacker you sure as hell can use it, it’s rather long but at the bottom it says how you can use to protect yourself. Yes there are stipulations but it’s rather simple explanation.

Under Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) in the
Criminal Code
, persons who have been issued a valid FOID
card may transport a firearm anywhere in their vehicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and
enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container. Firearms that are not immediately
accessible or are broken down in a non-functioning state may also be carried or transported under the Criminal Code.

The Wildlife Code, however, is more restrictive. It requires that all firearms transported in or on any vehicle be unloaded and in a case.
Because of this, it is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, all firearms be transported:
1. Unloaded and,
2. Enclosed in a case, and
3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.
Unless specifically exempted from UUW, a person commits a Class 4 Felony if he or she violates the UUW law
in the Criminal Code (i.e., unlawfully carries on their person or illegally transports a firearm in a vehicle)
AND one or more of the following aggravating factors apply:

(1) The firearm possessed was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the time of the offense;
(2) The firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded, and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense;
(3) Does not have a valid FOID card;
(4) Was previously adjudicated of a felony as a juvenile;
(5) Was engaged in a misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act or the Controlled Substances Act;
(6)Is a member of a street gang;
(7) Has had an order of protection against them in the last two years;
(8) Was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of
a misdemeanor involving the use of violence against another person or the property of another; or
(9) Is under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun, unless the person is engaged in hunting activities under the Wildlife Code.

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’
of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear
arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian
nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second
Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment
still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that
reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Re: “a well-regulated militia”, militia is defined by the author of the 2nd Amendment as “the whole people”, or anyone capable of bearing arms. “Regulated”, as defined at that time, meant to equip in a regular or adequate fashion. BTW, it didn’t mean the National Guard, since that entity didn’t come into existence until the Militia Act of 1903 was enacted.

Without the right of self-defense, your other rights would have no meaning.

Congratulations nuss you just repeated eveything I said ….wow
The fact that I pointed out the law as it is writen,so you understand that you can have a loaded weapon LIKE i said nuss….what..!! your trying to argue with me about the 2 seconds or the words of the 2nd amendment….idiot thats not what I was doing I was SIMPLY pointing out the LAW…attack,attack,attack….you never stop do you nuss

If Brian considers posting factual information as an “attack”, he has a distorted view of reality.
BTW, you CAN NOT carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle, unless you wish to commit a Class 4 felony. Read the law.

So it’s ok to shoot someone standing at your car door as long as there is an emply gun case next to you, where the gun was stored a few minutes ago, and an open glove box depicting where the magazine and box of shells were stored. I don’t believe that for a second. Better ask your brother again.

We prattle on about concealed carry but how many gun owners would actually do that? I’m an experienced shooter and own multiple guns but would most likely never carry. I’m fine with concealed carry but I wonder if there’s data out there that shows how many people ACTUALLY carry on a regular basis in the other 49. It’s probably not as much as we think. And, the data is mixed on its impact as a deterrent. Further, I doubt I would find myself in areas where I would fear that much for my safety that I would do it. Oh, I’m going to Target? Better get my gun. Not likely.

In Rockford, all the gun nuts seem to point to concealed carry as the big solution to our crime issues. News flash, a ton of our crime is drug-related and gang-on-gang related. Will it serve as a deterrent to some of the burglaries or armed robberies? Maybe. But it’s not a end-all-be-all solution. Never has been and never will be.

Stats that I have seen puts the percentage of concealed-carry permit holders at about 5% of gun owners. Obviously, in fascist states (like New York), the number is lower, since you have to PROVE the need for concealed-carry. Living in a dangerous neighborhood isn’t “proof”

No, it isn’t an end-all solution, but what is? Forty-nine other States didn’t turn into Wild-West shooting galleries after concealed-carry was legalized. In fact, the places with the most restrictive gun laws seem to have the most gun crime. Doesn’t that tell you something? The problem isn’t the guns, it is the criminals who mis-use them. Concealed-carry puts guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, so they can defend themselves against armed criminals.